Well according to Dan he is now down to a 3.3 index, I can't say it's not possible but just for curiosity I decided to tabulate his "anti" handicap and that wound up being a whopping 11.1 so I decided to do my own and it was 9.5 not sure how a 5.0 will have that much less of an anti cap versus a 3.3 but there it is , he is either one of the most hot and cold golfers out there or he is trying to mix a few low scores in between his real rounds, I play right alongside guys in this index range and sure they will have an occasional low 80's round but Dan is still hitting 90 and above on occasion and the 2 tournament rounds he broke 80 on were on courses that were barely 6000 yards and not even rated to 70 basically you can get away with 230 yard drives and wedges all day on a place like that. I don't know I guess I'm just skeptical when it comes to people and their assertions on the golf course, I think Dan is going to have a very hard time getting anywhere close to scratch if he doesn't start eliminating these 90+ scores soon.

Well according to Dan he is now down to a 3.3 index, I can't say it's not possible but just for curiosity I decided to tabulate his "anti" handicap and that wound up being a whopping 11.1 so I decided to do my own and it was 9.5 not sure how a 5.0 will have that much less of an anti cap versus a 3.3 but there it is , he is either one of the most hot and cold golfers out there or he is trying to mix a few low scores in between his real rounds, I play right alongside guys in this index range and sure they will have an occasional low 80's round but Dan is still hitting 90 and above on occasion and the 2 tournament rounds he broke 80 on were on courses that were barely 6000 yards and not even rated to 70 basically you can get away with 230 yard drives and wedges all day on a place like that. I don't know I guess I'm just skeptical when it comes to people and their assertions on the golf course, I think Dan is going to have a very hard time getting anywhere close to scratch if he doesn't start eliminating these 90+ scores soon.

Nothing's changed. I still say he should have been a 3.3 2 years ago if he's to have any chance. He should be around scratch now on 7000 yard courses. I don't like how he's giving the impression learning is linear with these hour measurements.

My anti-hcp is 9.2. For a 3.3 to have an anti of 11.1 is borderline unbelievable.

As handicap drops, the dispersion between high and low scores tends to tighten up. For everyone except Dan.....

Time for him to start playing some tournaments where the scores are a matter of record.

I went an calculated mine again ... 12.2 right now, to go along with a 7.9 regular cap. And I would consider myself an "up and down" type of player, so I'd guess the 4.3 difference to be on the higher-than-average side of things. His is nearly double that, and to top it off, he's now a 3.3?

I just posted about Mardy Fish. Granted he's a professional tennis player, but I think he and Dan have been playing about the same amount of time. Fish shot a 73 on a US Open local qualifying course. If Dan did that, I think that would be more "on track" to his goal. I want to see how Dan would do in the US Open qualifying.

Are you guys discussing his HC of 20 games vs. his HC of the best 10 games and the deviation between them?

Neither. His index as calculated from his best 10 vs his "anti-index" as calculated off his worst 10.

The better the player, the more consistent they tend to be. Comparing the 10 best scores to the 10 worst is a good way to gauge that consistency. A difference of almost 8 strokes for a 3.3 hcp is a huge variance.

Neither. His index as calculated from his best 10 vs his "anti-index" as calculated off his worst 10.

The better the player, the more consistent they tend to be. Comparing the 10 best scores to the 10 worst is a good way to gauge that consistency. A difference of almost 8 strokes for a 3.3 hcp is a huge variance.

What is an acceptable variance in your opinion.. unless there is a widely accepted number.. i.e. 3-5 strokes for example?

What is an acceptable variance in your opinion.. unless there is a widely accepted number.. i.e. 3-5 strokes for example?

No "widely accepted" number, but most single digit players are going to be somewhere in that 3-5 stroke range. It'll vary a little, just as your index does, but again, better players tend to be more consistent in their scoring than mid-high hcp players.

No "widely accepted" number, but most single digit players are going to be somewhere in that 3-5 stroke range. It'll vary a little, just as your index does, but again, better players tend to be more consistent in their scoring than mid-high hcp players.

Edited to add that Dean says that in order for someone to be considered "steady", their anti-hcp should be under 5......

Very interesting article.

My son is a 12 and I am a "17", but I beat him half the time. His anti-handicap is much higher than mine. The kid nearly breaks 40s a couple weeks, then barely scrapes out 48s the next couple weeks. He depends too much upon birdies to score low, while birdies are really rare for me.

Some of that might be the ability to contain emotions as well. I had been pretty decent at competitive archery because of my ability to take pressure, and it took 3 years to translate that to golf. This is the main reason why I think golf takes so long to get mediocre and longer to get good.

Not sure this would apply but eg. Phil Mickleson shot 75, 63 resp. two consecutive days last week same course. I realize HC variance comes from a larger statistical data group. But still this a top professional. HC/anti-HC difference of 8-9 for an amateur not so huge IMHO.

This made me curious so I calculated my ant-hdcp. I'm a 2.6 and my anti is 6.6. I feel that I am fairly consistent but I know of some great golfers that would have less than stellar anti-hdcps just because their bad days are bad. For a 3.3 to have an anti of over 11 seems pretty high though.

I haven't looked at the stats on this guy, but if he's claiming that HC and has that anti-hc it would seem he only does well on courses he really knows well and struggles a lot on other courses. To me, this isn't the mark of a good golfer, just one that plays his "home" courses a lot.